|
|
| (74 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | The '''World Wildlife Fund''' is a major wildlife conservation body that is now known as the [[World Wide Fund for Nature]] (WWF). The US branch, WWF-US, was founded in 1961 by [[Russell Train]],<ref>Christine MacDonald, Green, Inc., Lyons Press, 2008, p. 7</ref> who was the second US [[Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) administrator from 1973-77. Train was the president of WWF from 1978 to 1995.
| + | ''See main article'': [[WWF]] |
| − | | |
| − | In the same year that the US branch of WWF was founded, the organization was established in Europe with [[Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands]] as its international president and Prince Philip, the [[Duke of Edinburgh]] as head of the UK branch.<ref>Christine MacDonald, Green, Inc., Lyons Press, 2008, p. 7</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Corporate ties==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Writing in 1997, Brian Tokar observed in his book, ''Earth for Sale'', that the World Wildlife Fund was
| |
| − | | |
| − | :associated with nineteen corporations cited in the National Wildlife Federation's recent survey of the 500 worst industrial polluters. These companies included such recognized environmental offenders as [[Union Carbide]], [[Exxon]], [[Monsanto]], [[Weyerhaeuser]], [[Du Pont]], and [[Waste Management]].<ref>Brian Tokar, ''Earth for Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash'', South End Press, 1997, pp. 20, 25, cited by Michael Barker in "[http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker07.html#49 The Philanthropic Roots Of Corporate Environmentalism]", Swans Commentary, 3 November 2008, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In her book ''Green, Inc.'', journalist and former employee of [[Conservation International]] Christine MacDonald lays bare the corporate ties of WWF-US, the US branch of WWF-International:
| |
| − | :Its partners include mining, logging, consumer goods, financial services, high-tech, and large retailers.<ref>Christine MacDonald, Green, Inc., Lyons Press, 2008, p. xiv</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | WWF's corporate partners are perhaps not surprising in the light of its board of directors, which includes [[Pamela Ebsworth]], the wife of retired cruise ship baron Barney Ebsworth; [[General Electric]] executive [[Pamela Daley]], and [[S. Curtis Johnson]], the [[Johnson & Johnson]] heir.<ref>Christine MacDonald, Green, Inc., Lyons Press, 2008, p. 24</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | According to Christine MacDonald, [[Citigroup]] and [[JP Morgan Chase & Co.]] are WWF partners. WWF also has ties (relationships include donations, partnerships, programmes, projects, joint councils, and advisory boards) to [[Alcoa]], [[Home Depot]], [[Johnson & Johnson]], [[PG & E]], [[Royal Caribbean Cruises]], and [[Starbucks]].<ref>Christine MacDonald, Green, Inc., Lyons Press, 2008, p. 28</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair accuses WWF of backing nearly every trade bill to come down the pike, from [[NAFTA]] (North American Free Trade Ageement) to [[GATT]] (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and of sidling up to some unsavoury government agencies advancing the same neoliberal agenda across the Third World.<ref>Jeffrey St. Clair, [http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/StClair_PandaPorn.htm Panda Porn: The Marriage of WWF and Weyerhaeuser]", Dissident Voice, 5 December 2002, accessed January 2009</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS)==
| |
| − | | |
| − | In 2008 and 2009 the WWF came under heavy criticism for its ongoing involvement in this forum.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Background to the RTRS===
| |
| − | | |
| − | The social and environmental problems with soy cultivation in South America are many and serious. They include deforestation of the Amazon rainforest for the planting of soy monocultures, soil erosion and depletion, destruction of biodiversity, and rural depopulation and poverty. Most controversially, most of the soy grown in South America is genetically modified Roundup Ready soy, which brings all the risks associated with [[Genetically Modified (GM) Foods - Renewed Threat to Europe|GM foods]] in general. Added to these risks are the problems caused by the aerial spraying of Roundup (glyphosate) and other herbicides, which cause health problems in rural people and their livestock and animals, and poison water supplies and soil.<ref>"[http://www.lasojamata.org/files/RTbriefing%202008_6.pdf The Round Table on Ir-Responsible Soy: Certifying Soy Expansion, GM Soy and Agrofuels]" ASEED Europe, April 2008, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | The growing hostility to GM soy monocultures in South America and the strong consumer opposition to GM soy, particularly in Europe, add up to a PR nightmare for the big players who want to hide their culpability for the real impact of GM soy, and to obscure the whole GM issue by turning up the volume on issues around climate change and so-called sustainability. They hope that people will lose sight of the GM issue behind the green smokescreen of "sustainable [GM] soy".
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Launch of RTRS===
| |
| − | | |
| − | In 2005 WWF launched the RTRS as a forum with the stated aim of helping the industry move towards more sustainable practice.<ref>"[http://www.responsiblesoy.org/ Who We Are]", Round Table on Responsible Soy Association website, accessed January 2009.</ref><ref>"[http://www.lasojamata.org/files/RTbriefing%202008_6.pdf The Round Table on Ir-Responsible Soy: Certifying Soy Expansion, GM Soy and Agrofuels]" ASEED Europe, April 2008, p. 8, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | The first meeting of the RTRS took place on 17 and 18 March 2005 in a 5-star hotel in Foz do Iguazú. During these two days around 200 people debated about soy production. Among the participants were representatives of transnationals involved in soy production, manufacture and trade like [[Unilever]], [[Monsanto]], [[Bunge]], [[Carrefour]] as well as conservation NGOs such as [[Conservation International]], [[International Union for Conservation of Nature]] (IUCN) and [[The Nature Conservancy]].<ref>"[http://alotauenvironment.blogspot.com/2005/06/roundtable-on-sustainable-soy-some.html Roundtable On Sustainable Soy: some familiar faces]", Alotau Environment website, June 17, 2005, accessed February 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Out from the shadows at last==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Subsequent to the RTRS's first meeting, GM firms Monsanto and Syngenta seem not to have been openly involved and as of January 2009 they were not listed as being among the RTRS's corporate partners. In the light of this, some observers doubted that getting GM accepted as sustainable was any part of the RTRS's agenda. After all, the declared corporate members of the RTRS, ADM, Bunge, and Cargill, trade in all soy, be it GM or non-GM.
| |
| − | | |
| − | But in early February 2009, Christopher Wells, president of the RTRS, suddenly announced that Monsanto and Syngenta had joined its executive board.<ref>Email from Christopher Wells, President, Executive Board, Round Table on Responsible Soy Association (RTRS), received by GMWatch 7 February 2009.</ref> Announcing this move on the GMWatch listserv, GMWatch editor Jonathan Matthews commented, "Out from the shadows at last ..."<ref>Email bulletin, "Out from the shadows at last", GMWatch listserv, 7 February 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Legitimizing unsustainability?===
| |
| − | | |
| − | In 2007, the Dutch NGO Solidaridad was invited to be a member of RTRS and took a seat on the board. Solidaridad says:
| |
| − | :The ultimate aim [of RTRS] is to increase the proportion of verifiably responsible soy on the market (it is now one percent). In 2007, a special committee was appointed by the Round Table to determine the international criteria for responsible soy.<ref>"[www.solidaridad.nl/files/jaarverslagEN2007.pdf Solidaridad Annual report 2007]", Solidaridad, March 2008, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | The idea of the project is that soy approved by the RTRS would carry a label reassuring consumers that the product was sustainably and ethically produced.
| |
| − | | |
| − | However, critics have pointed out that it is not possible for the RTRS to achieve this when it is heavily funded by corporations with a poor environmental record. What is more, the RTRS will actively militate against sustainability by giving its rubber-stamp of approval to destructive soy production. ASEED, an NGO and critic of the RTRS, says:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :organisations and movements from across Latin America have criticised the very existence of the Round Table saying it merely seeks to legitimise the irresponsible and unsustainable practice of industrial soy production and justify even greater expansion, regardless of the human and environmental costs.<ref>"[http://www.lasojamata.org/files/RTbriefing%202008_6.pdf The Round Table on Ir-Responsible Soy: Certifying Soy Expansion, GM Soy and Agrofuels]" ASEED Europe, April 2008, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Sustainability criteria weak===
| |
| − | | |
| − | ASEED says of the RTRS criteria will not benefit growers or consumers, but only the industry:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Evidence from so-called "responsible soy" projects in Paraguay suggests that the Round Table will make little difference to the day-to-day activities of soy producers. The criteria being put forward are too weak, too superficial and to narrow focused on technical issues to make a real difference to the social and environmental damage being done by soy. In addition, the economical impunity of the agribusiness in the producing countries makes it unlikely that even these weak "sustainable" measures are to be enforced.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :But the criteria, which incomprehensibly have the backing of some conservation NGOs, will be hugely beneficial to the soy producers seeking to provide reassurance to European governments and consumers who are concerned by the damage being done. The Round Table‘s criteria will provide a valuable coat of greenwash, legitimising the damaging practice on the ground.<ref>"[http://www.lasojamata.org/files/RTbriefing%202008_6.pdf The Round Table on Ir-Responsible Soy: Certifying Soy Expansion, GM Soy and Agrofuels]" ASEED Europe, April 2008, p. 3, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Don't mention the GM word===
| |
| − | | |
| − | The RTRS's sustainability criteria do not even mention GM soy, even though most of the soy grown in South America is GM and the massive expansion of GM soy planting in the region has directly caused many of the problems claimed to be addressed by the RTRS. FETRAF, a Brazilian family farmers‘ organisation, pulled out of the RTRS because it was not sufficiently addressing its concerns, including the production of GM soy.<ref>"[http://www.lasojamata.org/files/RTbriefing%202008_6.pdf The Round Table on Ir-Responsible Soy: Certifying Soy Expansion, GM Soy and Agrofuels]" ASEED Europe, April 2008, p. 9, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Protest quashed===
| |
| − | | |
| − | During the 1st Conference of the Roundtable on Sustainable Soy in March 2005, civil society organizations held a counter-conference in Foz de Iguazu, Brazil to discuss the problems caused by soy production. They concluded that “sustainability and monoculture are fundamentally irreconcilable, as are the interests of peasant societies and agribusiness.”<ref>"[http://www.grr.org.ar/iguazu/docfinal-en.html Final Document of the Iguazú Counter Conference on the Impacts of Soya and Monocultures]", ITEPA (Technological and Educational Institute for Agrarian Reform), San Miguel de Iguazú, Brazil, 16-18 March 2005, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Participants at the 1st Conference in 2005 "agreed on an open, transparent, multi-sectoral and participatory process".<ref>"[http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/policy/agriculture_environment/news/?19199 Agreement reached on finding solutions for responsible soy production]", WWF website, 18 March 2005, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | But this is belied by what happened to an attempted protest around the 3rd Round Table on Responsible Soy in Beunos Aires in May 2008. It was caught on camera and the resulting video (in 2 parts) shows clearly that the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) is neither transparent nor inclusive of the people most directly affected by GM soy.<ref>"[http://www.grain.org/videos/?id=174 Protests around the 3rd Round Table on Responsible Soy - May 2008]", GRAIN, accessed January 2009.</ref>Civil society groups and farmers who traveled from Paraguay to the event were denied access to the hotel conference hall where the forum was taking place. They were told that they had to register in advance and pay $400 to get in – a sum, as one protestor pointed out, that many of them had never seen in their lives. Finally, they were ejected from the building by police.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===GM soy not sustainable===
| |
| − | | |
| − | WWF defends its discussion of GM at the Round Table on Responsible Soy by saying that "GM soy is already present in the environment". But as angry former supporters of WWF told GMWatch<ref>Emails sent to GMWatch.</ref>, WWF could use the same justification to start discussions of sustainable nuclear power plants, deforestation, human trafficking or child labour.
| |
| − | | |
| − | WWF also says, "the key question ... is how to reduce the major environmental and social impacts of soy cultivation, including impacts of GM soy". But this is total sophistry. GM soy is fundamentally NOT sustainable. As the Argentinian agronomist Walter Pengue and the Berkeley agro-ecologist Miguel Altieri note:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :The production of herbicide-resistant soybean leads to environmental problems such as deforestation, soil degradation, pesticide and genetic contamination. Socio-economic consequences include severe concentration of land and income, the expulsion of rural populations to the Amazonian frontier and to urban areas, compounding the concentration of the poor in cities. Soybean expansion also diverts government funds otherwise usable in education, health, and alternative, far more sustainable agroecological methods.<ref>Miguel Altieri and Walter Pengue, "[http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=421 GM Soybean: Latin America's New Coloniser]", GRAIN, January 2006, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Corporate members of the RTRS===
| |
| − | | |
| − | As of January 2009 the RTRS had 32 members from industry, banks and supermarkets, including the major crushers ADM, Bunge and Cargill, and 9 large-scale producers. All have interests in keeping up the expansion of soy monocultures in South America. Here is a partial list of corporate members:
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[ACSOJA]] | [[Aprosoya]] | [[Archer Daniels Midland]] (ADM) | [[Biofuels Corporation Trading Ltd.]] | [[BioPetrol Trading Zug AG]] | [[BP]] International | [[Bunge]] | [[Campina]] | [[Cargill]] | [[Carrefour]] | [[Danisco]] | [[EOP Biodiesel AG]] | [[Greenergy International]] | [[Marks & Spencer]] | [[Rabobank]] | [[Shell]] International | [[Somerfield Stores]] | [[Swedish Dairy Association]] | [[TM Chemicals LP]] | [[Wageningen University and Research Centre]] (Plant Sciences Group) | [[Unilever]] | <ref>"[http://www.responsiblesoy.org/members.php RTRS members]", RTRS website, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Civil society organization members of the RTRS===
| |
| − | Civil society organization members of the RTRS include the WWF, [[Conservation International]], [[The Nature Conservancy]], and [[Solidaridad]].<ref>"[http://www.responsiblesoy.org/members.php RTRS members]", RTRS website, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Notes==
| |
| − | <references/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category:GM]][[Category:GM]][[Category:Biofuels]][[Category:Biofuels Lobby Groups]][[Category:Water: NGO's]]
| |
